Centerfield

RICE: I believe the title was, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."

For those who have eyes, the truth was easy to see.

Bob,

That is just cheap political crap. I have not heard a single rational argument of what exactly Bush could have done to change the course of a very tragic history. The government as a whole failed to prevent this attack. This was not a case of the ignorance regarding OBL's animosity and aggressive intentions towards the US.

My impression (tell me if I'm wrong) is that the lack of reply to this post is due to the fact that the sheer lack of basic dignity or honesty on the part of the Bush team (not Republicans, the Bush team) has caused such disgust that it can't be put easily into words. Or, at least, not without some cool-down time.

Or maybe that's just me. If not, I want an explination as to why this is not one of (one of, not the) the worst actions the Bush team has taken in its time in office. As Joe Gandelman pointed out, this is not something to be disgusted by on a partisan basis, this is something that should make even die-hard Bush supporters think twice about, if not their allegiance, the validity of the tactics used by those whom they support.

IF I WAS CAPABLE OF CLICKING PREVIEW INSTEAD OF POST, I WOULD HAVE EDITED MY COMMENT AS FOLLOWS:

Bob,

That is just cheap political crap. I have not heard a single rational argument of what exactly Bush could have done to change the course of a very tragic history. The government as a whole failed to prevent this attack. It was not a case of Bush/Republican ignorance regarding OBL's animosity and aggressive intentions towards the US.

I don't know that 9/11 could have been prevented, but I am certain that we could have come closer to preventing it, been more on all the ball trying to prevent it.

Richard Clarke testified so, and apologized for his inability to prevent it. He was then smeared by the right-wing media for "only trying to sell books." Condi Rice made excuses, and triumphed, being rewarded with a promotion for Secretary of State.

No, I don't think 9/11 could have been prevented, but we missed preventing it by a mile rather than a whisker.

Todd Pearson: The question isn't, "Could George Bush jump in a fighter plane and stop the attacks." The question is, "Did he ignore the warnings?"

As for the "cheap political crap", I assure you the post did not spring from that source. I posted my message to express the sorrow and anguish I feel about the whole mess. Are you accusing me of being angry? Yes I am, guilty as charged.

I think 9/11 was a screw up from top to bottom. In my opinion a bunch of bureaucrats and politicians were so obsessed with their own agendas that they ignored a threat to this country. When the threat materialized they started doing what came natural to them, lie and cover their asses. The list of culprits is very long, and yes I do include bush and rice on that list.

"This administration now risks a serious credibility problem that will cause all but its lock-step partisans to parse and doubt its future words and affirmations."

That's the issue. I don't think many rational people think the attacks could have been prevented. It's the cover up that's the issue. Why did Bush sit on this until well after the election?

Of course, his credibility has been an issue with me since WMDs, Medicare reform, SS reform and now his latest budget proposal.

Richard Clarke testified so, and apologized for his inability to prevent it. He was then smeared by the right-wing media for "only trying to sell books."

Actually he was mostly "smeared" for trying to pass the buck and the blame for eight years of inaction and blown opportunities by the Clinton Administration on to an administration that had been in office less than eight months. It wasn't Clarke's "inability," but the Clinton admin's unwillingness. Clarke thoroughly marginalized himself crying wolf for years--and then one day the wolf came.

This is the same Richard Clarke that to this day maintains that a plant producing well over half of Sudan's pharmaceuticals and all of its veterinary medicines and owned by a local businessman was actually a chemical weapons plant owned by Osama Bin Laden supplying WMD to Saddam Hussein. The same Richard Clarke whose sworn testimony to the 9/11 commission and to Congress was (to be kind) somewhat different than the claims made in his book.

There's lots of blame and missed opportunities to pass around. Trying to use Clarke to push it all at Bush was less than credible the first time around, when Clarke was all by himself some of the best evidence that it was a long-standing and systemic trend going back at least a decade.

For those using Clarke as an argument exclusively against the Bush administration--make sure you've read the book first.

So what exactly was the new information withheld before the election? Just skimming through the full 911 report online, it's clear the FAA didn't do all it could to prevent the attack. I can't really see that this new report provides any new information that dramatically changes what we new before the election.

The report clearly states that it held 27 special security briefings from May 2001 to 9/11 and no new security measures were instituted. (pg 281).

The full report doesn't exactly leave much to the imagination. If this is a bush administration coverup, it's a thong-sized one at best (at least based on the NYTimes article). Either way, you can get a pretty good tan.

When will the recriminations, second-guessing and blaming end and allow us to move on? Is it so hard to believe that the possibility of such an unpresidented and cataclysmic terrorist act could not be fully appreciated until it finally happened. (And I would say that regardless of the Party in power at the time.) Can we not see that our interpretations of the intelligience are colored by what has now happened?

It's human nature after a tragedy to try to find some-one who screwed up to point a finger at. Alot of people make thier political careers trying to find scapegoats to demonize. I really don't see anything in the new portions of the 911 report that changes substantively from the previous report.... and that wasn't particularly damning.

General reports on terrorists threats come in all the time. When the government was more forthcoming about reporting them after 911 it got crucified for "fearmongering", when it wasn't as public about them before 911, it gets crucified for "cover ups". Hows it supposed to win?

Bottom line is, in an open society like ours, there are about 1000 different ways terrorists could attack us. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to point out how to defend against the last attack AFTER it has already occured. What is next to impossible is trying to figure out which of the limitless number of other ways we can be attacked will be the terrorists next choice and how to defend against it. Without a specific actionable threat I don't see how the Administration could have done anything better to prevent 911. Short of locking eveyone in thier homes and covering the entire nation in safety foam I'm not sure how you really can prevent such attacks...... and I guarantee that those of us who value civil liberties wont like the results if the government really starts taking more effective measures about prevention.

That's why the Administrations strategy (which I happen to agree with) is to attack the terrorists and take them out rather then trying to defend against thier next attack. It may sound glib, but playing defence, they really do only have to be right once...while we have to be right 100% of the time. That's a fools gamble.